Rajpal Yadav has addressed the controversy surrounding his alleged involvement in a ₹9 crore debt and cheque bounce case, clarifying that his brief time in Tihar Jail was not simply due to non-repayment of money, but a far more complex financial dispute.
Speaking on Shubhankar Mishra’s podcast, the actor rejected the widely circulated perception that he was jailed for failing to repay ₹5 crore. He insisted that the matter has been misrepresented and involves deeper legal and contractual issues.
“That’s exactly the question… I was not jailed because I didn’t have money. It was about a larger issue and a matter of principle,” Rajpal said, suggesting that the case cannot be reduced to a simple loan default narrative.
He further explained that what began as a ₹5 crore dispute escalated significantly over time, eventually leading to losses that he claims went up to ₹17 crore. According to him, the situation spiralled due to contractual complications rather than deliberate wrongdoing.
“Ye 5 crore ka masla hota to 2012 me nipat ta. Iss 5 crore ne 17 crore ko dubane ka kaam kiya hai,” he said, emphasising that the financial fallout expanded far beyond the original amount.
Rajpal also pushed back against allegations of fraud, arguing that failure in film-related ventures should not automatically be interpreted as dishonest intent. Drawing a comparison with the film industry’s unpredictable nature, he highlighted how most projects do not succeed despite genuine efforts.
“In the film industry, out of 100 films, 20 work and 80 fail… If a film fails, it doesn’t mean fraud has been committed,” he noted.
Expressing confidence in the legal system, the actor added that he has full faith in the judiciary and believes the truth will eventually prevail. He stated that while he did not initiate the legal battle, he intends to see it through to the end.
“This fight was not started by me, but it will end because of me,” he said.
The comments come as Rajpal Yadav continues to face public scrutiny over the long-running financial dispute, which has seen multiple legal developments over the years.
